Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:31:37 +0800 | From | Lai Jiangshan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3 V8] workqueue: Allow modifying low level unbound workqueue cpumask |
| |
On 04/28/2015 12:36 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 23:44 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > >>> So, we need an API to modify the wq_unbound_cpumask, and I provided >>> this public function. Otherwise, the other code can't modify it. >> >> I see. I don't have too strong an opinion; however, changing the mask >> is a fairly heavy operation. Are there specific reasons why we don't >> want to follow the nohz config right away? > > Isolation is not only applicable to nohz_full. Many loads are > unsuitable for nohz_full, yet require maximum isolation. > > ATM, nohz_full is not dynamic, but hopefully one day will be. In the > here and now, we can isolate cores from the scheduler on the fly via > cpusets, a prime API user candidate. > > -Mike >
So, the public function needs to be kept and the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() is killed?
| |